I found it interesting to read in "Deliverables" (page 3 of 4 , 2nd bullet, last sentence): it basically states that the GAC need not agree with the findings / recommendations of the WG. In such a case the WG would have to reconsider or revise its proposals. 

This provision ( or proviso) does not seem unusual except that the principles of HRs are not universal to all the members of the GAC. Some countries are known to have a poor record on HR. 

In otherwords the WG would probably draft a robust statement on HR ( eg right to privacy, data protection, freedom of expression , openness etc etc) which statement would bind future GAC behaviour - it'll be  adopted by GAC as their position on HR for all times.

How likely would member states that are known offenders of  Human rights seek to agree to such a HR statement? Such a statement could be inconsistent with their national laws and policies.

Lets hope that this is not the case.

regards

Karel